If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( == Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety, the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when he was 17. My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident, single occupant to the car. == == |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( == Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety, the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when he was 17. My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident, single occupant to the car. == == |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ........................ The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( == Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety, the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when he was 17. My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident, single occupant to the car. == I'm sorry to hear that. == == |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ........................ The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( == Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety, the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when he was 17. My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident, single occupant to the car. == I'm sorry to hear that. == == |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents should (or should not) be helping with the costs. Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the decision. So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel justified in dumping that kind of expense on him? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents should (or should not) be helping with the costs. Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the decision. So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel justified in dumping that kind of expense on him? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents should (or should not) be helping with the costs. Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the decision. So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel justified in dumping that kind of expense on him? I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children expenditures. While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over and above normal CS expenditures. So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents should (or should not) be helping with the costs. Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the decision. So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel justified in dumping that kind of expense on him? I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children expenditures. While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over and above normal CS expenditures. So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents should (or should not) be helping with the costs. Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the decision. So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel justified in dumping that kind of expense on him? I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children expenditures. Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it all. Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else. While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over and above normal CS expenditures. Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone. So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses. Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like the mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents should (or should not) be helping with the costs. Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the decision. So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel justified in dumping that kind of expense on him? I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children expenditures. Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it all. Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else. While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over and above normal CS expenditures. Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone. So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses. Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like the mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 25th 03 03:04 AM |
FRONTLINE FIX (now one for babies, Raney?) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | November 7th 03 05:47 AM |
Vagina-related insurance fraud (Dan Fitz. at The Hartford, you're removed) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 1st 03 05:20 PM |
The largest insurance fraud (medical birth) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | October 29th 03 10:48 PM |